this post was submitted on 23 Jul 2024
219 points (94.7% liked)

Technology

59288 readers
4851 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ml/post/18305395

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Yeah I didn't think it would make the "pixels" smaller, but the beam would need to pulse less often and therefore could travel more. Maybe I'm misunderstanding what they did.

[–] deranger@sh.itjust.works 11 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Electron beams scan insanely fast, that isn’t the limiting factor. Getting that much bandwidth across a VGA cable is tough. If you wanted super high refresh rates on old CRTs you’d have to drop the resolution. Same concept.

[–] bionicjoey@lemmy.ca 8 points 3 months ago (1 children)

Ah. I see, so reducing the resolution was more about sending frames to the monitor faster, not about optimizing the tube hardware's behaviour

[–] dgriffith@aussie.zone 3 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

Yeah basically you can only signal "on-off" so many times a second in a vga cable before the ons and offs get blurry and unusable. So you can trade lower resolution for a higher frame rate as long as you keep the total number of on-offs below the limits.